Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Missiles

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.

Politicians use nuclear missiles to show that they have power. This however shows that they indeed have no power and use nuclear missiles as a crutch. This blinds the people into thinking they are a powerful leader and the people vote for them. The Nuclear missiles are making our view of politics skewed. Jim McCluskey, author of the article “Politicians and their Armageddon Machines”, stated that politicians use nuclear missiles to feed their egos and keep their egos strong by fostering a culture of fear. When politicians talk about how nuclear missiles protect this country, think again. They put us at a bigger risk of
…show more content…
There should not be that many weapons that can decimate all life within the blast area, and definitely not enough to destroy the surface of the earth. In the same article stated in the previous paragraph, Jim McCluskey shared a statistic that is utterly shock. there are over 23,000 known nuclear weapons in existence right now. That may not seem like that much only one nuclear missile can kill over 630,000 people. That’s 14,490,000,000 people killed if all of the world 's nuclear weapons went off. That’s over twice the world’s population. People try to put off nuclear weapons as just a defence, but very few know the true devastation one can

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    After reading the article, "Bill Perry Is Terrified. Why Aren’t You?" , I am left with a newfound terror and fear for my future. Not only to deal with student loans but now have to walk under the constant burden and fear of a potential nuclear war in the future is all very depressing and terrifying. Just like Martin Wolf explained, we have forgotten the past and lately we seem to be remaking those past mistakes.…

    • 560 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • 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.…

    • 1248 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    I feel that the debate on the nuclear bomb and limits in wartime was overall a weak one. Both sides struggled to get their points across and explain them in a way that someone could understand them. The facts and evidence were present for most of the debate, but the connections to make great points were not. Out of all the points I feel the con side’s claim that there was alternatives to the nuclear bomb was lacking the most. This was due to the fact that whenever they were asked for any supporting evidence or examples of alternatives to the bomb they would shrug the asker off and move on.…

    • 282 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Great Essays

    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. This led to the situation in the 2000s when there were, “[…] 32,000 nuclear bombs possessed by eight nations containing 5,000 megatons of destructive energy. This is a global arsenal more than sufficient to destroy the world”17. It was only after the cold war, when the Soviet Union and the United States of America were competing to develop more and more deadly weapons in larger quantities, did countries realize that there was no need for all of the weapons they had created, and thus agreed to limit themselves to only enough weapons to eliminate the enemy.…

    • 1895 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The decision to use the atomic bomb posed several significant moral dilemmas for President Harry S. Truman, among these were justifications, alternatives, and complications of the situation. After Teddy Roosevelt 's death, Truman was the new president with a huge decision to make only a few months after. People felt Truman was an insecure man and poorly informed by Roosevelt until his entry to the presidency. It was months later that he learned of America’s dark secret, the Manhattan Project. There were presumably three possible alternatives available to Americans to avoid using the atomic bomb such as invasion, increasing bomb threats and blockades of Japan, and negotiating peace.…

    • 1237 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was a sad and tragic event that killed thousands of innocent Japanese people. This fatal event could have been prevented with a single decision from our American Government in 1945. Our American government and President Truman decided that it would be better to take the lives of Japanese civilians, than to use a different plan that could have saved their lives. Michael Barnes is correct when he argues about atomic bombs being unnecessary to use in World War Two, because it took the lives of innocent people, it may have been racially motivated, and alternatives could have been made instead of using this weapon of mass destruction.…

    • 974 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In “Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan argues that the United States should ban private gun ownership almost entirely. His most crucial claim is that general gun ownership does more damage to the U.S. than it prevents. Therefore, banning private gun ownership would minimize the amount of occasions where a gun could potentially be used for harm. In this paper, I will reject these claims presented by McMahan because the banning of private gun ownership would not inevitably lower crime rates.…

    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Left-Of-Launch Strikes

    • 309 Words
    • 2 Pages

    If there was ever a time that nuclear war is evident you want to be ensured that you are protected. In the case of there actually being a nuclear attack there are different counter attacks to combat the nuclear threat. The “left of launch” approach is one of the newest technological advantages in this day and age. In this concept instead of using something like the Terminal High Altitude Air Defense which is used to destroy the nuclear missile or any sort of air attack after is has been launched towards its intended target but, in the case of “Left of launch” they hack into the missile before even launching therefore essentially making that missile a non threat. In the case of North Korea and iran using nuclear missiles the “left of launch” approach may play a huge role in stopping a nuclear missile from either being launched as test or for being launched in an act of war on the U.S or on another county.…

    • 309 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The United States of America dropping the atomic bombs on Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6th and August 9th, 1945, was a very controversial decision and the opinions as to if the attacks were justified or not differ between those living in Japan and the U.S. The U.S’s act of dropping the atomic bombs was not justified because the long lasting health effects the bombings had on the population was disastrous, Japan’s army was inevitably facing defeat, and the mass destruction caused by the attacks lead to social damages throughout Japan. Although the atomic bombs did ensure victory for the U.S and British forces, it was a victory that definitely came with a cost; the significant loss of the Japanese population.…

    • 1117 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    American citizens were greatly affected by the policy of deterrence because it meant that the threat of nuclear war became greater every time the U.S. or Soviet Union created a new nuclear bomb. As this arms race progressed U.S. citizens felt scared that a nuclear war might occur. Some people started to build bomb shelters so that if a nuclear war happened, they had a place to go and to survive a nuclear blast (Greenberg). During the same time, children and adults were told if a nuclear bomb went off that they should duck and cover. This propaganda of duck and cover helped American…

    • 1824 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Reagan had said to many that it was “ the saddest day of my presidency and probably the most saddest day of my entire life.” (“Cannon, 2008”) It was not only a sad day for him, but a sad day for all. Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan both came to an agreement later on and signed a treaty called, Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty in December 1987, at the Washington Summit. This treaty will “ eliminate an entire class of intermediate-range nuclear missiles.”…

    • 1072 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Nuclear missiles are one of the most dangerous weapons made by man today. Want to know how the end of the world would look like. Just imagine living in a radioactive wasteland in a global nuclear war era where there is no sign of life ever existing again, dead trees, burnt grass, the extinction of all humans, and wildlife ceasing to exit. Every edible crop, or source of drinking water would be completely contaminated. This would have been the results of our Earth if Premier Kruschchev, and President Kennedy did not come into an agreement.…

    • 1056 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior 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…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Even with discontinuance of the cold war, military continues to develop; this has lapsed the spending especially in the deployment of nuclear-armed and ballistic missiles along with defensive systems. Due to the fact that there was no formalized treaty ending the Cold War, the former influential nations have continued to desperate lengths. This caused them to depend on their economies to maintain and push to improve, even modify existing nuclear weapons. Many states had taken into consideration the potential risk to national and international security, which pushed them to acknowledge nuclear-weapons states had inherited major responsibilities in protecting sustaining the balance of their nuclear forces. To elaborate on risks, there are accidental and unauthorized nuclear havoc which not only puts the military in danger it puts civilians into that category as well.…

    • 1350 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior 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

Related Topics