Threat Of Nuclear War

1131 Words 5 Pages
The Issue behind dealing with the Threat of Nuclear Wars
Nuclear war is a very interesting topic. Everyone agrees that nuclear weapons are dangerous but the issue comes in with how to deal with a nuclear threat. Some debaters believe that nuclear weapons should be banned because humanity cannot survive a nuclear war. The sources I have found for these type of debaters are “Nuclear War: A Greater Threat than Ebola” and “How to Dismantle An Atomic Bomb: Toward An Achievable Ban on the Testing of Nuclear Weapons”. Other arguers believe that nuclear weapons do not have to be banned because humanity can survive a nuclear war through shelter. The sources I have found for these types of arguers are “”Bomb Shelters & Fear of Nuclear War” and “Defense
…show more content…
There are over 17,000 nuclear weapons. Millions of people will die from the immediate impact from a nuclear bomb and the human race would suffer from starvation. The effect on the planet’s climate would be catastrophic. The medical community is very important when the debate of a potential nuclear war starts to become a bigger issue. The medical community has a great influence on informing citizens that nuclear weapons should be banned. The medical community cannot support the hundred of millions of people that are injured from a nuclear war. The medical community could possibly lose most of their work force, as many employers would be killed from the explosions. There is also a history behind nuclear wars. The first nuclear, or atomic, bombs were deployed on Hiroshima. Even though nuclear weapons are clearly extremely destructive the government is still testing them. Mathew Landry believes that North Korea and Iran have the most potential to start using nuclear …show more content…
The nuclear bomb is the most destructive weapon that the human race owns. I believe that the powers of the nuclear weapons are far too dangerous for people. Nuclear weapons should be banned because life on Earth would be destroyed if a nuclear war started. The other perspectives were very interesting and I liked some of their ideas. I feel like the best idea was Horatio Bonds. His idea was to change the structure of buildings to help prevent secondary fires from atomic bombs. Even with his idea though, I believe that it is safer to simply not have these weapons at all. If all nuclear weapons were destroyed then there would be no need for any country to hold on to them for protection as claimed by the Committee on Armed Services. If nuclear weapons were finally banned then all of the money that is being used for building shelters for a potential war could be redirected to other situations such as helping the poor. I hold on to this perspective because I believe that governments across the world already have powerful weapons such as tanks and missiles. If the government continually creates powerful weapons then I feel like it could began to harm the planet and the life on

Related Documents