Argical Analysis Of Eric Schlosser Today's Nuclear Weapons

Improved Essays
Nuclear weapons have come into existence within the last decade. They have changed the way wars are fought as they could lead to the total extermination of humanity. These weapons can lead to mutual destruction of nations, which really have caused humans to reevaluate the way they conduct foreign affairs. Eric Schlosser’s article “Today’s nuclear dilemma” is about the nuclear weapons that countries control and what should be done with them. Schlosser argues that the current nuclear weapons active should be disarmed. He believes that there are too many variables in the equation of handling these weapons. He points out that no one in the world is safe with these weapons in circulation. I agree with Schlosser’s view, as nuclear weapons …show more content…
The author argues that these changes have increased the threat of nuclear weapons as Russia has lowered the threshold for using them. Schlosser then brings up an example of NATO in the cold war. NATO used a strategy to disperse tactical weapons to the frontline to deter a Soviet invasion. Schlosser then states that the authorization for firing the weapons was deregulated and thus the threat of the weapons being fired accidently rose substantially. The author ends his point of deregulation in nuclear weapons by saying that governments have tried to resolve the issue, but have not had …show more content…
Schlosser agrees with this point but he also states that since the deterrence is psychological and not physical it could not work in the future and bring about disastrous results. For example, if India and Pakistan used their nuclear weapons on each other, more that one billion people would be killed.
The next point that examined is nuclear weapons violate international law. This is true as nuclear deterrence is like holding a nation hostage. Also nuclear weapons cannot differentiate between military targets and civilians it violates the Geneva Conventions, which protect civilians. The author than talks about how the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons has convinced many countries to seek abolition of nuclear weapons and how the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons have been steps in the right direction.
The last point of the article is about how to undo the knowledge to create nuclear bombs. Schlosser believes that the knowledge to create these weapons can be forgotten because as time passes and when there is no nuclear testing, people will forget as they become less

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Yet by the time the time the rest of the world reacts to the cheater nation could be possibly too late. Also if the only thing that is keeping a nation from building nuclear weapons is the threat that other nations have the “know how” to build them and use them against you. What is stopping that nation from building nuclear weapons, because once they possess them they know they will not be…

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    And even if we never go to war with our weapons, Worldwide transgressions and arguments are solved easier because they know of our power. On the other hand people who believe our nuclear weapons should be dismantled state their view that nuclear weapons only cause problems. They make other nations not like us because nuclear weapons are very hostile and have nothing friendly about them and hurt the morals of our nation and others ( Pros and Cons of Nuclear Weapons Paragraph 8 ). North Korea feels the need to make more nuclear weapons because of ours. The United States should retain their nuclear arsenal because they help keep our nation safe, If we go to war we can use them to scare off other nations or worst case scenario, use the weapons, and nuclear weapons are more cost efficient than some may…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This is because of the concept of MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. All major powers are forced to rethink the notion of war due to the Mutually Assured Destruction nature of nuclear weapons. Possible total destruction of the states presents too many risks to the rational leaders of the respective states. For rational…

    • 1047 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Decent Essays

    They were the ones who created it and felt like they should have had a say so in where it was dropped and how is was used. Personal I felt like American was wrong for not informing the scientist about how and where they were going to use the bomb. I don’t think America knows how much damage it could cause if you were exposed to radiation and how it would affect your like in the long run. I know they wanted to stop the war, but there’s other ways they could have approach it. Maybe they should have used one of the options that the scientist made at the…

    • 634 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The pacifist position argues that the use of nuclear weapons will always be morally wrong because: “1) their use will result in widespread noncombatant deaths and 2) the destructive effects of such weapons will necessarily be out of proportion to any political or military objectives achieved” (p.208). Yet, there are some objections against the pacifist position. First, an argument against the view that the proliferation of nuclear weapons it’s inevitable and will eventually escalate to nuclear war, is that since 1945 there is not a single case recorded with the use of nuclear weapons. Second, by taking this pacifist’s position…

    • 1702 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    . Our defense is law and order”15. One of the problems of nuclear weapons is the slippery slope created by the threat of them. There is no absolutely safe defense against a nuclear bomb, so as shown through history, nuclear weapons are their own deterrents. To stop wars, nuclear weapons, such as atomic bombs, were used, but in order for the enemy to combat those weapons, they had to develop nuclear armaments themselves, which creates a cycle where the production of weapons instigates the production of more weapons16.…

    • 1895 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is sad that people think that something that could wipe out the entire human race, and even blow up the planet seven times, is what will protect us. It is better to feel safe if there are no nuclear weapons in the world, like what the CCC 2315 says, creating more bombs is not going to create peace. Power is not worth having if it is going to potentially destroy innocent lives and military strategy for nuclear weapon use will be unnecessary if nukes did not exist. Nuclear weapons will be unnecessary if people weren’t so hungry for power and protection. The world will be a much better place without something that can wipe the human…

    • 1186 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The world needs nuclear weapons; they are a powerful tool in negotiation and war prevention, however they need to be treated with respect and managed properly. Nuclear weapons are very powerful and necessary tools for world peace. However ironic that statement sounds, it is a fact that is too important not to consider. During the cold war, a theory called mutually assured destruction, known by the acronym MAD (Opposing Viewpoints), came about. The philosophy stated that any countries attacked with a nuclear bomb would retaliate to the launch of a nuclear device of their own,causing the destruction of both parties.…

    • 1026 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There is no real need for nuclear missiles, contrary to many people’s beliefs. People think they protect us, but really just put us at more risk of attack. All they really do, besides level whole metropolitan areas in a few seconds, is harbor a false sense of security for the politicians to hide behind. They state that they will protect our country with these weapons of mass destruction, but it’s all just an elaborate ploy to get innocent voters to put them in power of these armageddon machines. Many people think that nuclear weapons protect them, but in reality they put them at more risk of nuclear attack.…

    • 1089 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Clarke also wrote that, “it would be morally unjust to nuke North Korea just because they are expanding their reach with their nuclear weapons”. A first strike would be uncalled for. The regime has only threatened the United States, a strike on them from the United States would destroy all of their land and would be devastating to our partnership with China. A first strike would most likely result in a war between North Korea and the United States with help from South KOREA. Clarke argues that if the United States were to go to war with North Korea, a war on their…

    • 1937 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays