Nuclear Weapon Debate

Improved Essays
In February 13, 2009 they have such a long debate which President Barack Obama “referred to the need to reduce the force structure of our strategic military systems by cutting the number of deployed nuclear weapons”. In this debate he spoke about why we should reduce our nuclear weapon and what it will be cause of reducing it. He also mentions that military civilian leaders have make plan to reduce nuclear weapons, the main question is what if United State reduce nuclear weapon and what will be consequences for nuclear weapon reduce.
In the book of “Spread of Nuclear weapon” Scott D. Sagan also said that we should worry if United State have more nuclear weapon and the reason he give is “The two superpower maintained a long peace throughout
…show more content…
In the article of “Defense Breaking” author “Blake McMahons” have argument that we still need more weapon because he start giving a lot of real example when Hiroshima and Nagasaki happen. He said that “For humanity’s sake, we must do everything possible to ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used in war. The consequences are simply too grave”, he also mention that if we use nuclear weapon make the world more dangerous, but at the same time Blake still considers to increase nuclear weapon, because he don’t want to denied what would happen in past and he kept saying that we should think prepared ourselves if we lost nuclear …show more content…
Jonathan compared President Barack Obama statement and Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Jonathan said that “who 's ever seen pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki knows. It 's also popular; U.S. presidents have been making similar noises There 's just one problem with the reasoning: it may well be wrong”. In his statement he said that it couldn’t be possible to stop producing nuclear weapon. Whatever we create new policy we still consider looking our

Related Documents

  • 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
  • Improved Essays

    The other driving factor of the Busch doctrine that the book focuses on for causing a more dangerous world is that of the preemptive actions that President Busch has taken to stop proliferation to countries. The doctrine that the United States has adopted means that they must act before enemy nations have the capability or are in possession of nuclear weapons. This is particularly the case for countries that harbour terrorists. Schell uses the example of the Iraq invasion of 2003 and how that was how the USA invade on the suspicion that they had nuclear weapons, this in fact was false. Yet regime change was implemented.…

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The White House announced a new diplomatic effort to restart stalled talk with North Korea about its nuclear program which less than three weeks and described that the test was in “blatant defiance” of the Security Council. The White House also claimed that the danger posed by North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community. In my opinion, North Korea has fully utilize its nuclear weapons as an action to deter others when its country is being threatened or bully by some other countries. North Korea in doing so with a reason that it wants to maintain, protect or enhance their nuclear power in a more stable form. As a conclusion, I propose that it is possible to form world peace which is absence of violence when countries have the ability to control, to maintain, to protect, or to enhance their nuclear…

    • 1049 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This simply means that he had to consider all other aspects, but mainly focus on what was right in terms of war. Because of the conflict and fighting that had already been occurring, including the surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor a few years prior, Truman did have the justification he needed to give the order. The atomic bombs would make an end to the war much quicker, but would also provide vengeance to those of the Pearl Harbor attacks and give justice to the funding and time put into creating it. Alternatives had been brought, most suggesting that bombing a less populated area would be enough to intimidate them. However, Truman dismissed this and stated it wasn’t go to be enough to force them to surrender.…

    • 1219 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    casualties of up to 1 million” according to the website of History. To prevent this for happening, President Truman decided over the moral opinions of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, General Dwight Eisenhower and some of the scientist of the Manhattan Project to use the atomic bomb. They were hoping to bring the war to an end. Above all, the Secretary of State James Byrnes a proponent of the Atomic Bomb believe that the bomb “would not only end the war, but also put the U.S. in a dominant position to determine the course of the postwar world” referring to the website of History. In other words he agreed that sending the bomb would help the United States in not only win against Japan also it would move the U.S. into a leading position in the postwar world.…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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…

    • 1263 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The difference between them; however, is how they present the idea of why we would use the atomic bomb in this circumstance. Document B, leaves the ending more open, letting the reader infer why we would drop the bomb. The author, a commander in the air force, would have known the true reasons, but yet again, like Truman, does not want to scare the public. He ends his argument in saying that “atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.” He wants the reader to understand what he is saying, which is that the U.S.A. was strictly doing this to scare Soviet Russia. Document F on the other hand, written by a physicist states this fact blatantly, that we need to do this to scare the Soviet Union.…

    • 1037 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    at Pearl Harbor was the core reason for driving the President Harry Truman, successor of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, to make his final decision of using nuclear weapons to finally and permanently defeat it. Further charges, suggesting that there were other options for ending the war besides the bomb, and that Harry Truman knew it, have faced rebuttals claiming Japan was anything but on the verge of surrender. And within the historiography, consensus continues to elude scholars on such basic issues as why the United States used the bomb (Bonnett, 1997, pag…

    • 1817 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Am I clear?’ demanded Pladimir. ‘Of course Mr. President. I’m sure however that if the scientists were aware of why they were working on such mass weapons of destruction they would work faster-‘ ‘No, we cannot allow anyone to know of my plans for world domination. We must keep this a secret until our attack takes place. Even our so called “Allies” such as Germany and Poland will be destroyed after we have taken over the world.’ Said Pladimir.…

    • 1193 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Despite most American 's opposition towards the nuclear weapon, the government had used it anyways claiming that that Communism would spread unless the war came to a quick end. The Americans had been correct about the spreading of nuclear powers if the bomb was used, and the security of our world would be threatened in the future during the Arms Race, and the Cold War (Bradford). The Manhattan Project scientists had made a prediction about the future of nuclear weapons in a statement called The Preliminary Statement of the Association of Manhattan District Scientists. In the statement is is written that “we have been made strongly aware of the dangers inherent in the mishandling of this tremendous force by the peoples of this world. ...Scientists of other countries will be spurred on to develop atomic bombs of their own in self-defense.…

    • 1709 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays