Nuclear Weapons Cons

Superior Essays
Nuclear weapons have been prevalent in world society since WW2, however they also haven’t been used since the end of WW2 so it is questioned to what extent they are useful in society nowadays. Do they act as a good deterrence for to keep the peace between feuding nations, or do they cause more harm than good as at any point a ‘button’ could be pressed and world annihilation could happen? Supposedly the cold war was supposed to be the ending of the tension between the east and west however in times like today it can be argued that we are at less peace now then we were as countries are so unsure of what the other could do and there are so many other nations that have nuclear weapons so readily available. Keeping nuclear weapons may seem like …show more content…
Russian governments have long been at loggerheads with the United States of America since before the cold war and the fact that the cold war happened should have been enough to show that nuclear weapons do not help with international peace. It only takes one nation to suspect another nation to have nuclear weapons to start another cold war or an actual war. If you take the middle east as an example, the western countries suspected them to be making nuclear weapons and the mistrust that now exists between these states is hostile and violent. Furthermore, with the emergence of countries like North Korea having the use of nuclear weapons terrifies the western nations even more as they little control or power over what happens and these sorts of countries don’t tend to listen to the International governmental organizations like NATO or the UN. ‘North Korea 's nuclear programme remains a source of deep concern for the international community. Despite multiple efforts to curtail it, Pyongyang says it has conducted five nuclear tests, with the fifth supposedly its "most powerful" test to date.’ (BBC News, 2016) This piece of news clearly suggests that, even though many international countries have tried to stop North Korea from testing their nuclear weapons, there is nothing they can do to stop them. This implies …show more content…
Even so, there are some countires, like North Korea and Iran, that do not have influence over world issues. Then there are many countries like Australia, Canada and Spain that do not have a nuclear weapons programme and they do hold important influence in the contemporary world arena. Rarely do you hear of Canada having any issues with other countries and they are still influential in the contemporary world arena and therefore it does start to make people question why so many countries feel the need to keep nuclear weapons as Canada are a relatively peaceful country. Furthermore ‘Canada has ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), is a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group…is an active member in several ad hoc non-proliferation efforts…’ (Nti.org, 2016). This shows that not only do Canada not allow testing of nuclear weapons, they also are against the position of keeping these weapons for use. Therefore showing they believe that they do not promote peace in society. The view that keeping these nuclear weapons as a matter of holding importance in the world view could be seen as a realist view point as if elite states monopolise the weapons then they, in turn, technically hold the power over the smaller, weaker nations who do not have the weapons. This thought makes it hard to split the bad nations from the good and question the

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Sovereignty In North Korea

    • 1858 Words
    • 8 Pages

    They have found this hatred mainly from the cold war. This started in the year of 1950 and it ended in 1953 this ended up splitting Korea into North and South Korea. King John Un has a fear that the United States are going to disrupt their sovereignty because they are a community that is run by Communism. However, this is not true the United States does not want to fight because they do not see the reason being fit. However, North Korea has recently been threating us with their nuclear capabilities that can supposedly reach the U.S. mainland’s.…

    • 1858 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved 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
  • Decent Essays

    One thing this paper discusses is how war between states with nuclear weapons is discouraged because of the weapons. Atomic bombs are extremely difficult to manage and always have imperfections because they are manmade and humans are the ones controlling them so there is always a chance that something will go wrong. Since the United States was the first state to develop nuclear weapons they have it perfected the most, many other states have weapon designs that are much less safe. Not only are the weapons that other countries have less safe but the leadership that many other countries have is not at the same caliber as the United States which could lead to disaster. Iran was one of the countries to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and if they were to get an atomic bomb they would violate that treaty and invite other countries to violate that…

    • 1139 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The scientists were concerned about the dangers of nuclear power and that it would threaten civilizations. The main reason on why they even wanted to make an atomic bomb was because they felt like Germany already had one and was waiting for the perfect time to use them. Other reason on why many scientist were upset on how the atomic bomb was used is because Szilard as well as 150 other scientists made…

    • 634 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent 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
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 1248 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    People have different thoughts on if the U.S should retain or dismantle their nuclear arsenal. People that think it should be kept make arguments like how nuclear weapons help keep the U.S safe and how they can be used if there were to be any sort of war. On the contrary People that feel our nuclear weapons should be dismantled say our nuclear weapons cost too much to be kept and they make us seem hostile to other nations. So should the U.S keep its nuclear arsenal? Well there are lots of pros and cons to both sides of this argument.…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Nuclear Deterrence Theory

    • 2178 Words
    • 9 Pages

    The nuclear deterrence theory is a common term used in international relations. This theory gained prominence during the Cold War with regard to the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence in short means to deter one state from attacking another with its nuclear weapons, that is, the state is discouraged from attacking. As a result of its extreme destructive power, nuclear weapons could deter more powerful adversaries. The nuclear deterrence theory is and has always been a theory that many states have made allusions to since the Cold War to solve foreign conflicts.…

    • 2178 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    (U.S. Department of State<state.gov>) The nations made sure that they could defend themselves from the destruction that nuclear weapons could cause. Also the nuclear bombs make the area where they are used unsuitable for people afterwards. The prevention of nuclear war is very important to this day because of how many nuclear bombs have been produced, and the people who have that power. The United States and Russia have the majority of the world’s nuclear weapons, but they are not the only places that have produced the weapons of mass destruction. (io9.com) The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signed by five known to be nuclear nations restricts the number of nuclear weapons they can have.…

    • 1904 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Nuclear states agree to only participate in peaceful nuclear technology and pursue to become non nuclear states. Many people have argued that some of these weapons cannot be checked or controlled, and that we are destined to live in fear of destruction. That nuclear war is inevitable.The United states knows this not to be true, we know there is hope of a safe society, The United States has a responsibility to act, to protect. But we needed the global community to stand with us, we cannot succeed alone. After more than five decades of talking about nuclear disarmament, it is time for nuclear weaponry to finally be…

    • 451 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays