World Peace and Atomic bombs
The question of whether atomic bombs are an essential ingredient in keeping and maintaining world peace is as complex and mind-boggling as trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle with a gun to one’s head. Arguments on the topic are diverse and develop from opposite spectrums of our collective moral and ethical compass.
Extremists who are often trigger-happy believe that peace is achieved by stirring deep-rooted fear into enemies and potential oppressors by waving around their prowess in superior military arsenal. They claim to have numbers backing them up. Open a history book they say and you will witness what the modern world looks like without atomic bombs. It is a horrible sight beyond description. During the 35 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, the world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of an estimated 78 to 95 million people, both soldiers and civilians included.
Most countries’ reasons for going nuclear are for supposed protection. President Pierre Mendès France’s rationale was straight forward. He believed that “French military power must remain at least a degree of magnitude superior to Germany’s; thus, the fewer the restrictions on German conventional weapons, the greater the need for a French atomic force.” Given France’s suffering at the hands of the German …show more content…
They believe that peace cannot be kept by force but by understanding and dialogue. Disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons are inseparably linked to development. Besides peace, which is a fundamental prerequisite to world progress, nuclear abolishment provides numerous other benefits. Funds tied up in nuclear programs can be used to alleviate the plight of poverty of millions of people around the world and help fight global problems such as food insecurity and climate change for
The question of whether atomic bombs are an essential ingredient in keeping and maintaining world peace is as complex and mind-boggling as trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle with a gun to one’s head. Arguments on the topic are diverse and develop from opposite spectrums of our collective moral and ethical compass.
Extremists who are often trigger-happy believe that peace is achieved by stirring deep-rooted fear into enemies and potential oppressors by waving around their prowess in superior military arsenal. They claim to have numbers backing them up. Open a history book they say and you will witness what the modern world looks like without atomic bombs. It is a horrible sight beyond description. During the 35 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, the world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of an estimated 78 to 95 million people, both soldiers and civilians included.
Most countries’ reasons for going nuclear are for supposed protection. President Pierre Mendès France’s rationale was straight forward. He believed that “French military power must remain at least a degree of magnitude superior to Germany’s; thus, the fewer the restrictions on German conventional weapons, the greater the need for a French atomic force.” Given France’s suffering at the hands of the German …show more content…
They believe that peace cannot be kept by force but by understanding and dialogue. Disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons are inseparably linked to development. Besides peace, which is a fundamental prerequisite to world progress, nuclear abolishment provides numerous other benefits. Funds tied up in nuclear programs can be used to alleviate the plight of poverty of millions of people around the world and help fight global problems such as food insecurity and climate change for