Morality is subjective. Each and every individual on this planet has had a different upbringing, different biases and paradigms that have been instilled in them from a young age, even if they are not conscious of said ideals. That’s what makes discussing the morality of world issues difficult. Nuclear warfare has brought forth academics from every sector, ranging from environmentalist to philosophers. Unlike many other ways in which conflict has been fought, nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing over 225,000 civilians . If nuclear warfare has only been executed once, why is there still fear associated with those two words? The answer is simple. The fear comes from nations using nuclear deterrence.
…show more content…
This paper will also examine how nuclear warfare has changed modern war, and if the notion of nuclear weapons is immoral. By studying journals and books written by scholars from different fields of study, there will be an all-encompassing trend that will give a more balanced perspective of morality, the evolution of nuclear warfare, and how it has effected modern day war. To understand the evolution of nuclear warfare to modern day conflict it is important to trace back the invention of nuclear weapons as far as possible. Most people would assume nuclear weaponry began with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that disregards the years it took the United States of America to develop the skill and scientific knowledge to create the weapons that would later terrorize the world. In fact, on May 31st 1945, just three months before the bomb dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States Secretary of War, Henry …show more content…
Barash and Webel brought forth and interesting perspective regarding modern issues in comparison to nuclear warfare, stating that recently our society has been so immersed with fear regarding “global warming, economic equality, abuse of human rights, and terrorism” that the thought of nuclear weaponry has completely been overlooked . Given the thesis of this paper, this point is very valuable and eye opening. Most media outlets and news sources only discuss nuclear warfare when it will benefit them (i.e. when a new “World War III” movie is released) only giving a small shock to society’s view of nuclear warfare few times in a year. Barash and Webel also point out that we are all so preoccupied with the millions of other issues present in the world that we ignore the steady rise of this extremely destructive weapon, and the governments that are discussing its use . From a different, yet equally as important perspective arises from an environmental protection advocators standpoint. Not only considering if nuclear weaponry is moral for the inhabitants of the earth, environmentalist are also looking at the catastrophic, non-reversible damage done to the planet itself . This perspective brings forth an entirely new way of looking and judging the morality of nuclear warfare. With nuclear waste lasting
This paper will also examine how nuclear warfare has changed modern war, and if the notion of nuclear weapons is immoral. By studying journals and books written by scholars from different fields of study, there will be an all-encompassing trend that will give a more balanced perspective of morality, the evolution of nuclear warfare, and how it has effected modern day war. To understand the evolution of nuclear warfare to modern day conflict it is important to trace back the invention of nuclear weapons as far as possible. Most people would assume nuclear weaponry began with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that disregards the years it took the United States of America to develop the skill and scientific knowledge to create the weapons that would later terrorize the world. In fact, on May 31st 1945, just three months before the bomb dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States Secretary of War, Henry …show more content…
Barash and Webel brought forth and interesting perspective regarding modern issues in comparison to nuclear warfare, stating that recently our society has been so immersed with fear regarding “global warming, economic equality, abuse of human rights, and terrorism” that the thought of nuclear weaponry has completely been overlooked . Given the thesis of this paper, this point is very valuable and eye opening. Most media outlets and news sources only discuss nuclear warfare when it will benefit them (i.e. when a new “World War III” movie is released) only giving a small shock to society’s view of nuclear warfare few times in a year. Barash and Webel also point out that we are all so preoccupied with the millions of other issues present in the world that we ignore the steady rise of this extremely destructive weapon, and the governments that are discussing its use . From a different, yet equally as important perspective arises from an environmental protection advocators standpoint. Not only considering if nuclear weaponry is moral for the inhabitants of the earth, environmentalist are also looking at the catastrophic, non-reversible damage done to the planet itself . This perspective brings forth an entirely new way of looking and judging the morality of nuclear warfare. With nuclear waste lasting