ESSAY QUESTION:
"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."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
---------
This statement deals with the necessity of laying down nuclear weapons and with the U.S. leading by example. But, is it safe to do so? Are the U.S. in a position to guarantee nuclear safety? I will try to address these two questions in the following paragraphs.
When we consider the looming dangers of terrorism in our world these days, nuclear weapons certainly are a tool to protect us against groups plotting to commit terrorist attacks. The power of such armoury is frightening and certainly makes potential perpetrators of terrorist attacks think twice, before they commit such a crime. Secondly, if the U.S. were to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, who can guarantee that other countries would not take advantage of such fact and attack the U.S. immediately after the dismantling of its nuclear arsenals? Renouncing to nuclear armoury could be a dangerous move.
On the other hand, the world would be a safer place if no nuclear weapons would exist. It has been proven that these are dangerous, that the politicians who control them are often volatile, and that, based on their threatening destruction potential, nuclear weapons are often used as a tool to put pressure on countries that have none such armoury. Further, the threat of some evil politician, or terrorist, getting hold of a nuclear arsenal and causing havoc by attacking a certain country is just too high, for politicians not to start considering solutions in order to dismantle their nuclear weapons.
Finally, society evolves and so do its individuals, which makes me think that at some point people will be able to live in peace, without the threat of constantly directing deadly weapons at each other.
In conclusion, the author is right to express his concern about the threat of nuclear powers and does well in pointing out that the U.S. should take a leading role in order to put certain nuclear armoury related measures in place. Nevertheless, the U.S. should not accept to dismantle their nuclear arsenal first, if no agreement is put in place that all nations with nuclear weapons do the same. It is fine to lead by example but it would be too naive to embark in such a delicate task with out worldwide consensus.
------------
Thanks for your feedback.
Marco
"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."
Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the position stated above. Support your viewpoint using reasons and examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
---------
This statement deals with the necessity of laying down nuclear weapons and with the U.S. leading by example. But, is it safe to do so? Are the U.S. in a position to guarantee nuclear safety? I will try to address these two questions in the following paragraphs.
When we consider the looming dangers of terrorism in our world these days, nuclear weapons certainly are a tool to protect us against groups plotting to commit terrorist attacks. The power of such armoury is frightening and certainly makes potential perpetrators of terrorist attacks think twice, before they commit such a crime. Secondly, if the U.S. were to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, who can guarantee that other countries would not take advantage of such fact and attack the U.S. immediately after the dismantling of its nuclear arsenals? Renouncing to nuclear armoury could be a dangerous move.
On the other hand, the world would be a safer place if no nuclear weapons would exist. It has been proven that these are dangerous, that the politicians who control them are often volatile, and that, based on their threatening destruction potential, nuclear weapons are often used as a tool to put pressure on countries that have none such armoury. Further, the threat of some evil politician, or terrorist, getting hold of a nuclear arsenal and causing havoc by attacking a certain country is just too high, for politicians not to start considering solutions in order to dismantle their nuclear weapons.
Finally, society evolves and so do its individuals, which makes me think that at some point people will be able to live in peace, without the threat of constantly directing deadly weapons at each other.
In conclusion, the author is right to express his concern about the threat of nuclear powers and does well in pointing out that the U.S. should take a leading role in order to put certain nuclear armoury related measures in place. Nevertheless, the U.S. should not accept to dismantle their nuclear arsenal first, if no agreement is put in place that all nations with nuclear weapons do the same. It is fine to lead by example but it would be too naive to embark in such a delicate task with out worldwide consensus.
------------
Thanks for your feedback.
Marco
