The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Arsenal

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. Some say one day nuclear weapons will be our demise, and others say nuclear weapons are the only reason we are still safe from nuclear war today. People that feel we should keep our nuclear arsenal make the arguments of nuclear weapons give the U.S a fear factor, or edge over other nations ( Pros and Cons of Nuclear Weapons Paragraph 5 ). …show more content…
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    I like how he uses historical events to back up his arguments and keeps reverting back to key themes such as nuclear apartheid and the double standard. He also brings up many thought provoking questions that do not have direct answers such as why do the United States and Russia still hold each other’s population hostage to a nuclear strike 20 after the end of the Cold War? Schell also brings up many rationale theories as to why in the 21st century countries are seeking to obtain nuclear weapons. His explanation of how “the realists fear, the romantics ambition for greatness, and the Wilsonian’s yearning for peace flowed together to provide a flexible, new, encompassing rationale for possessing nuclear arsenals in the 21st century” (Schell, p.81). This quote, for me, sums up all the reasons as to why a nation in the modern world would want to obtain nuclear weapons, and Schell synthesized perfectly.…

    • 831 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Also nuclear weapons cannot differentiate between military targets and civilians it violates the Geneva Conventions, which protect civilians. The author than talks about how the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons has convinced many countries to seek abolition of nuclear weapons and how the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons have been steps in the right direction. The last point of the article is about how to undo the knowledge to create nuclear bombs. Schlosser believes that the knowledge to create these weapons can be forgotten because as time passes and when there is no nuclear testing, people will forget as they become less…

    • 1248 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • 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.…

    • 1089 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Sovereignty In North Korea

    • 1858 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Recently North Korea has released the fact that they have enough power to release a hydrogen bomb in the top of a missile. This is a perfect example because the North Koreans know they should not be able to have nuclear power yet they flaunt their power and threaten the United States. This violent conflict has caused problems amongst various country’s such as South Korea and China has had to reason with the U.S. to talk about how to address the problem with North Korea. This type of Realism shows that King John Un cares about nothing but power and how the rest of the world will view him and his…

    • 1858 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There are several arguments against the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons. For instance, some argue that it is impossible to ever justify recurring to war, under any circumstances or provocations. Proponents of these arguments explain that the proliferation of nuclear weapons it is inevitable, hence, modern war will eventually escalate to nuclear war, and the consequences will be too catastrophic to be justifiable. Those who defend this point of view argue that the only way to avoid all these catastrophic consequences is the rejection of war altogether, in other words, taking a Pacifist position. The connection of the previous arguments against the use of nuclear weapons to the requirements of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello is that nuclear weapons do not accomplish with the main purpose of Just War Tradition, which is preventing and saving innocent lives.…

    • 1702 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    They were the ones who created it and felt like they should have had a say so in where it was dropped and how is was used. Personal I felt like American was wrong for not informing the scientist about how and where they were going to use the bomb. I don’t think America knows how much damage it could cause if you were exposed to radiation and how it would affect your like in the long run. I know they wanted to stop the war, but there’s other ways they could have approach it. Maybe they should have used one of the options that the scientist made at the…

    • 634 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Great Essays

    A writer from the American Magazine by the name of Kevin Clarke claims that we have to take consideration in for our allies before we do a preventive strike. South KOREA would be at great risk as the neighbor of North Korea. If North Korea and its nuclear missiles survived an attack from the United States, invading South KOREA would most likely be their first choice to get back at the US. South KOREA is at risk because we . Clarke also wrote that, “it would be morally unjust to nuke North Korea just because they are expanding their reach with their nuclear weapons”.…

    • 1937 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The act of encouraging our allies to carry nuclear weapons would also be contradictory to our foreign policy of denuclearization that we’ve actively advocated for the last 4 decades and supported by the American people. Our veterans may also end up being jobless in the midst of our decision which is contradictory to our goal of reducing the…

    • 1492 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    And a current example with North Korea- their leader and government doesn’t reason well and the U.S doesn’t know if or when they may launch a nuclear missile on the U.S. They have threatened the U.S before with missile threats and so it may be easier to declare war on them so the U.S has a chance at winning instead of the chance of getting bombed. On the other hand, declaring war on North Korea would probably cause the death of a lot of innocent people, which is a bad…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Although it is true that proliferation may prevent wars through deterrence, and that eradicating nuclear weapons will lead to a lower sense of security, the negative consequences outweigh the benefits. Nuclear proliferation can lead to catastrophic devastation to the entire human population through the deaths of millions of people and losses of trillions of dollars in property. The chances of nuclear terrorism and the growth of a nuclear black market will increase significantly if proliferation occurs in new countries. Furthermore, the deterrence theory does not apply to terrorists and dangerous proletariats such as North Korea due to the huge role psychological mindset plays for the success of the deterrence theory. The growth of nuclear weapons can be countered by a policy of conservative internationalism.…

    • 1231 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays