Nuclear weapons are potentially more devastating than any other weapon in human history. We must stop pointing the nuclear gun at our own heads. The best way to lower the threat of nuclear war is for the nuclear capable nations, including the U.S., to lead by example and dismantle their own nuclear arsenals."
RESPONSE:
I agree with the statement that the best way to lower the threat of nuclear war is for the nuclear capable nations to dismantle their own nuclear arsenals first. Before i present my facts that support this statement it is important to realize that if a nation has a type of a weapon it will be used sometime in the future because there is no point in developing a weapon and storing it.
The most important fact that has to be realized is that nuclear weapons create massive destruction as demonstrated by the U.S when it dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing millions. In addition nuclear sites can be harmful in peace time also; like the Chernobyl disaster in Russia. Hence, the fact that the cost of human, natural and economic consequences completely outweigh every every other benefit is the most important reason for disarmament.
It should also be realize that all nations of the world are competing amongst themselves. If one has a nuclear weapon the others are justified to have one for defense purposes. Thus leading to an arms race. Take for example the case of Russia and USA in the 1980's. The cold war lead to stockpiling of thousands of nuclear weapons between the two nations. None of these weapons were ever used and now they pose a great danger to the countries that posses them because storing such vulnerable cargo is complicated and expensive. It hurts the economy and is not beneficial to the economy as such.
In addition given the current situation of terrorist activities around the world if any one of these highly destructible weapons fall into the hands of irresponsible extremists it could lead to a disaster. Thus nations have to spend a considerable amount of resources to protect these weapons from getting into the wrong hands. Take for example Pakistan, which currently has about 60 -70 nuclear weapons and the country is also one of the most unstable in the world. Terrorists operate in a major part of the country and have penetrated deep in the society. Thus Pakistan spends a lot of its money on protecting these weapons than on its own citizens. This is evident from the fact that it receives billions of dollars in loans from developed nations and has a weak economy.
In conclusion the world does not need highly destructive weapons which will never be used. In cases where an unruly nation has to be disciplined, other methods such as trade embargo's have shown to work effectively - example Libiya. Thus, the fact that nuclear armed nations should start working to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is necessary and it should start with the country with the largest number of these weapons - USA. In doing so the role of USA as the superpower and as a responsible nation among all nations of the world will be strengthened.
RESPONSE:
I agree with the statement that the best way to lower the threat of nuclear war is for the nuclear capable nations to dismantle their own nuclear arsenals first. Before i present my facts that support this statement it is important to realize that if a nation has a type of a weapon it will be used sometime in the future because there is no point in developing a weapon and storing it.
The most important fact that has to be realized is that nuclear weapons create massive destruction as demonstrated by the U.S when it dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing millions. In addition nuclear sites can be harmful in peace time also; like the Chernobyl disaster in Russia. Hence, the fact that the cost of human, natural and economic consequences completely outweigh every every other benefit is the most important reason for disarmament.
It should also be realize that all nations of the world are competing amongst themselves. If one has a nuclear weapon the others are justified to have one for defense purposes. Thus leading to an arms race. Take for example the case of Russia and USA in the 1980's. The cold war lead to stockpiling of thousands of nuclear weapons between the two nations. None of these weapons were ever used and now they pose a great danger to the countries that posses them because storing such vulnerable cargo is complicated and expensive. It hurts the economy and is not beneficial to the economy as such.
In addition given the current situation of terrorist activities around the world if any one of these highly destructible weapons fall into the hands of irresponsible extremists it could lead to a disaster. Thus nations have to spend a considerable amount of resources to protect these weapons from getting into the wrong hands. Take for example Pakistan, which currently has about 60 -70 nuclear weapons and the country is also one of the most unstable in the world. Terrorists operate in a major part of the country and have penetrated deep in the society. Thus Pakistan spends a lot of its money on protecting these weapons than on its own citizens. This is evident from the fact that it receives billions of dollars in loans from developed nations and has a weak economy.
In conclusion the world does not need highly destructive weapons which will never be used. In cases where an unruly nation has to be disciplined, other methods such as trade embargo's have shown to work effectively - example Libiya. Thus, the fact that nuclear armed nations should start working to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is necessary and it should start with the country with the largest number of these weapons - USA. In doing so the role of USA as the superpower and as a responsible nation among all nations of the world will be strengthened.
