Mr. Head
Civics 1
November 11, 2013
Position Paper
Pro keeping Nuclear Weapons Should the United States keep and maintain nuclear weapons today? Yes, because without nuclear weapons we would not be able to have the protection we have today since the threat of nuclear war. Which the odds of that happing are very slim since these weapons of mass destruction cause so much damage, but if the U.S where to get rid of the nuclear weapons today that would leave a huge vulnerability slot for us since the other countries would very well keep their nuclear weapons and use them against us. Therefore the United States should keep their nuclear weapons and continue to maintain them just in case of a serious threat required use one. “Everyone in the world is threatened by the existence of nuclear weapons. Has anyone the right to wield such destructive power?” (Morality of Nuclear Deterrent) Many people in the United States disagree on whether the United States should keep nuclear weapons. Mainly because of the moral factor. Yes, it is dangerous for countries to own such a powerful figure that threatens millions of people around the world, but the world is trapped by this idea of possible idea of nuclear war that just about every country has on these weapons of mass destruction and will continue to make more to show dominance over the other countries who don’t have as much. The moral factor that is sure to be constantly brought up by many people about keeping our nuclear weapons will always be discussed since the greater damage these weapons cause. For example, when the United Stated bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes it was tactically right decision and prevented imperialism from expanding, and preventing the cause of japan gaining complete dominance over the world had to be overlooked when coming into the moral play off of the all the people who were affected by this disaster to their country. These cities where quite larger, but not to big so there where about 210,000 people killed on the instant of the bomb dropping and later about 50,000 more from the after effects of the dropping of the bomb.(Children of the Atomic Bomb) these numbers are even staggering now since that is a massive amount of people dying at once. This is the moral question part of nuclear weapons. People don’t want to keep weapons since they can completely destroy every human and every objects in its way, except Twinkies (ha-ha little joke there for you Mr. Head) The morality of a man who can give and order to drop such a weapon to obliterate many people is such a topic to be discussed since it was either them or us and the men leading the country at the do know they would have no hesitation taking over our country since that is what there intensions was to do in the first place. “We Can't Bring Ourselves to Say Dead Japs is a Good Thing, so We'll Just Praise the Bomb!” (Diana Steele) This quote right here shows the view of an American citizen during the time of the nuclear bombing and them alone feel bad for what has happened to the Japanese, but the war is over and so all they want to praise is the bomb since it’s the reason why the war is over. The Americans at the time where all for the bomb. It worked and knew it had power, but as time went on people began to realize that the horrors of the bombs where threating since America was not the only one with nuclear weapons at hand. This posed a threat to American citizens since they were afraid America was going to get bombed since by then we were entering the cold war. Many other countries started to develop the nuclear weapons and so know we end up where we are today. Many countries have nuclear are in a tangle threw both sides of the world. Theses American citizen views many believe that we should get rid of our nuclear weapons since many of them believe that other countries will notice this and began to remove theirs, but this is not the case. These other countries will continue to use them as a threat and maybe go farther lengths since we won’t have any and we are not the favored country of the world. “It's Alive! Now, give it to everyone” (Diana Steele) nuclear weapons are everywhere and the fact of the matter is we should keep them. We should have them to keep the United States safe and protected against threats that could cause massive amounts of damage to the U.S. Whether or not its morally wrong, doesn’t mean we are using them we have them to keep us safe because the fact is it’s just a game between countries and who can create the most. Whoever has more has the dominance over the other countries. There will always be the debate on whether we should keep them or not for example form debate.org from an anonymous debater his idea in his own words says, “The main reason is its potential for harm and destruction, given the fact that effects are disease and death. If a state nukes another, then the state bomb will explode, thereby setting a chain reaction of explosion till nothing remains.”(Anonymous, Debate.org) These people disagree and should get rid of the bomb since there is deterrent for it anymore in war. But another view on why we should keep the bomb is exactly what I said earlier about us losing the dominate power. From the very same exact play, the other side of the debate by a man call the IronWaffle, “Fighting back If we were to abolish all of our nuclear programs it only takes one rouge country like North Korea or Pakistan to launch some at us and eliminate us or any other country. Also once we would disarm them other countries like China and Russia would be watching us closer than ever before. If even 1 is launched at us we are screwed.” This man is pro keeping them and has the right idea because these other power countries will take advantage of us getting rid of nuclear. But then there are the people who believe getting rid of nuclear weapons will bring world peace and everything will be happy and in love but the reality in that is bull. “No they shouldn't. Nuclear weapons are the main reason we haven't had a world war 3, and no other major war since 1945. Many people think that nukes will be the end of the world, and it makes sense why they would think that, but if we destroyed our nuclear weapons, do you really think that Afghanistan, and other foreign countries that are itching for power really would?” (anonymous) as said well by this man who decides to keep his identity sealed by debate.org says that keeping our weapons prevents world war 3 since no one wants that disaster of getting rid of theirs, But like also like the third world countries they are itching for dominance since in their views if you don’t follow their religion you should die, but anyways having us keep our nuclear weapons is a safe protocol to take in keeping our country safe since again they do pose as a threating move to other countries. As of right know we have 7,700 nuclear war heads as said by global zero anti-nuclear weapons group. That is by far the most of any country in the world. Nuclear weapons are very powerful and could destroy the entire world many times over. Now that that power exists then we as humans crave it because naturally we crave power. So, nuclear weapons will never be gone if it's up to humans to decided. I believe that being humans, as we are, we have no idea how to handle such great power, and it scares the U.S and its people to think that we possess this. But now that it is here it is here to stay, the only way to go is forward. We need to get more understanding of such power and we need to humble ourselves before using such great influence. But not everyone is a humble person and when it comes to the mass of many, they tend to act on emotion and excitement rather than deep thought. Also stated, “Nuclear weapons provide a major advantage in a conflict, even without using them. Granted, in most situations, the advantage is one-sided and could be regarded as completely unfair, but there's still no sense in handicapping oneself. Whether nuclear weapons are abolished or not, there will still be countries or organizations that would aspire to, and eventually succeed in, making them. And to be weaker for the sake of an arbitrary agreement is entirely irresponsible. We can't count on the entire world to truly agree on anything. (Burginger, Debate.org) In conclusion there are the advantages and disadvantages when having nuclear missiles, but as stated above there are much more affective reasons to keep nuclear missiles in the United States that way we are protected and still have a sense of power against the other countries who are looking for dominance in the world. We are posed by threats every day and without the U.S keeping their nuclear weapons we are out of security and cannot thrive as a country because we will be in even more constant fear of getting attacked by another foreign country.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
Despite the fall of the Soviet Union 19 years ago in 1991, the issue of nuclear arms, besides terrorism, remains one of the chief security concerns in the contemporary world. Accordingly, the following issues concerning nuclear arms remained unresolved security concerns.Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These events not only brought about the surrender of the Japan and an end to World War II, but they also helped shaped the nature of international politics for the next six decades.The atomic bomb is the crudest form of a series of powerful nuclear weapons to be eventually developed and come into existence. Both superpowers, the United States of America and the Soviet Union, eventually built massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons during the Cold War. This escalation of nuclear arms possession led to…
- 401 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
Wittner, Lawrence S. "There Is an Ongoing Danger of Nuclear War." Nuclear Armament. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "The Ongoing Danger of Nuclear War." hnn.us. 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.…
- 946 Words
- 3 Pages
Powerful Essays -
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.…
- 5226 Words
- 21 Pages
Better Essays -
I do not subscribe to the fashionable notion of moral equivalence between all deeply-held beliefs. I believe in the rights of the individual over the collective. I believe democracy is better than dictatorship, both morally and practically. Not necessarily democracy as we or the Americans or the French practice it, but the idea that in every possible practical way, you should let people make their own decisions, and if these decisions need to be circumscribed in any way, then you should only do it with the explicit approval of a majority of the people in question. And above all that a people must be able to change governments and leaders without resorting to force.…
- 2057 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Wars have occurred for various different reasons all around the world, each nation involved using their best means of defensive and offensive attacks. Weaponry has been updated as time went on, leading us from arrows and bows to powerful guns. In the 1940s during World War II, however, one weapon in particular left a huge impact. The United States’ decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II was not justified due to the fact that it was ethically wrong, an excessive use of force, and unnecessary.…
- 701 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
I agree with the nuclear optimists that nuclear proliferation will make international politics more stable and less war prone. Since nuclear weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), more specifically as true WMD (Baylis pg 386), I believe states that possess nuclear weapons will be reluctant to use them against states who also possess nuclear weapons, out of the fear those state will retaliate with their own nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons poses risk to a state that chooses to use a nuclear weapon against another nuclear proliferated state. Therefore, by this logic it benefits to a state to be nuclear proliferated as a defensive precaution or a deterrence mechanism.…
- 581 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Georges Clemenceau once said “war is too important to be left to the generals.” In Dr. Strangelove, Col. Ripper remarks that now “war is too important to be left to the politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought” but Kubrick’s message implies that war is too important to be left to anybody at all. So with the persistence of nuclear technology as weapons of mass destruction, the question arises: Do we, as decision-makers, have the restraint not to use such weapons on one another? The question remains unanswered, but if there is to be peace, we must remain cautious and aware of their implications. Nuclear technology gives humanity an incredible opportunity to move forward, but if misused, it could send all life on earth back to the stone…
- 1243 Words
- 5 Pages
Better Essays -
Many people think that nuclear power can provide low-cost energy which can easily substitute oil and the other common sources of energy. In addition to this, nuclear weapons are considered the only instrument which can make possible the maintenance of word peace. The nuclear problem is complex and difficult to analyze without any kind of prejudices. First of all, it is true that nuclear power can provide a huge amount of energy to every city in the world, but we also should consider…
- 310 Words
- 2 Pages
Satisfactory Essays -
The United States should not continue to develop and test weapons of mass destruction because it can kill millions,It's expensive and has lack of morals. On August 6, 1945 Harry S. Truman, had to make a world changing and tough decision. The United States dropped the world’s first deployed atomic bomb all over Japan,Hiroshima.The explosion destroyed 90% of the city and very quickly killed about 80,000 people and later on because of radiation exposure , 10,000 people died. The United States shouldn’t make and test weapons of mass destruction because it’s harmful, costs a lot, and has flaws.…
- 608 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The nuclear bomb is dangerous and scary weapon that really should have never been thought of or invented. Nuclear bombs have been the focal point of every country's scientists ever since World War II when the U.S. dropped them on Japan. Just seeing the death and destruction a nuclear bomb can cause to people and the environment just proves my point. Not one person should have the power to just be able to push a button and have the ability to tear another country to shreds.…
- 399 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
First, Nuclear Weapons have strong mass destruction. For example, The United States sent "Little boy", a uranium gun-type fission bomb to Hiroshima, Japan. 3 days Later, The United States sent " Fat Man" in Nagasaki, Japan. More than 10,000 people died from these incidents. In my opinion, Nuclear Weapons didn't kill just people, but their family, their home and their dream.…
- 276 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
The first use of the atomic bomb by the United States has its pros and cons. However, when you look at it in perspective, it was a wise decision in diplomatic and political terms, but not so much in ethical…
- 891 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
I agree with you on the first paragraph. She's intelligent and informed but not necessarily a good person.…
- 333 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
“When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and to do it, and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success. That is the way it was with the bomb,” said Robert Oppenheimer, the leader of the Manhattan Project (Polenburg 2002, 41). The atomic bomb has been exhaustively debated, as is Robert Oppenheimer’s life, but that’s what makes it so researchable and interesting; there is information on both sides of the argument - on Oppenheimer’s morals and on criticism on the U.S. government. Scientists, can kind of care, care, or not care about morality; and there is a responsibility when making war decisions - there should be a parallel harmony between the government and scientists. However the…
- 1947 Words
- 8 Pages
Powerful Essays -
I feel the use of atomic weapons are needed, but they are dangerous when they enter into the wrong hands. I have asked several people what they feel about atomic weapons in the U.S. Asking my mother, she said: “I feel atomic weapons are good. They made Japan surrender, and helped end WWII.”. I also asked my roommate, and her response was: “Atomic weapons serve a good purpose, especially when it comes to bad situations regarding our country. They keep us safe, and show power.”. As I asked several friends and family, I got pretty much the same…
- 536 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays