Nuclear technology is not destructive if used for beneficial purposes but if the users are interested to use the technology for disparaging purposes, then it is really lethal for all the human beings on this earth…
Download file to see previous pages...
Every other day, we listen to different kinds of debates related to nuclear technology and weapons present with different nations around the world. These debates are for and against the nuclear weapons but this fact cannot be denied that a world without nuclear weapons would be more secure as people will not have an option for massive destruction. Chernobyl incident, Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attack and Japan’s Fukushima nuclear radiations are the worst lessons which nuclear weapons and energy have taught humankind. Nations must endeavour to use nuclear energy for power generation for meeting the rising energy needs. We cannot say that without nuclear weapons, there would be no fight on this earth but massive massacre can be controlled by putting a check on nuclear weapons and eradicating them altogether from the face of the earth to save humanity. Nuclear weapons can kill not hundreds but thousands and millions of people residing in any country and belonging to any nation within no time and this capability of the weapons makes them extensively vicious and fatal. In the Second World War, United States attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two cities of Japan with nuclear bombs and its residents are still bearing the consequences of that damaging occurrence. The cities got destructed wholly and this happening cannot be forgotten as it informed about the destructiveness through nuclear weapons (Weart 58). Nuclear technology’s negative usage started from Second World War and at this juncture, many states have nuclear power and can use it when they feel a need. These cities are still suffering from the radiations of nuclear attacks that took place almost half a century ago. After effects of such disasters are long lasting and nations suffer for a prolonged period. People around the world agree that nuclear weapons are disadvantageous for the masses. Perkovich & Acton (2009) inform, “States possess nuclear weapons because they fear they might face threats of massive destruction. If they all get rid of nuclear weapons, major warfare might not break out immediately, but the chances of such conflict coming about would rise dramatically.”this tendency have speed up the race to acquire nuclear weapons for creating a deterrence in the world. This has given value to get nuclear weapon and indulged nations in arm race. (p. 21). The nuclear states around the world feel that a unilateral disarmament must be there to eradicate all the nuclear weapons altogether but this step is quite difficult to take for the countries and their governments, as unilateral disarmament is not accepted by all the countries. Separate disarmament is also a difficult step to be taken by the governments having the nuclear capability because they consider that disarmament will allow other States to attack them. Nuclear states have doubts of outside attack due to which, they do not want to get rid of their nuclear weaponry power. US and Russia have agreed to take measures to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. This step will help the great powers to avoid falling of such lethal weapons in the hands of terrorist organizations (Drell & Goodby 25). Third world countries must be encouraged to dismantle the nuclear facilities and resolve the core issues through peaceful negotiations. Big nations must take first step to save future of world. Russia and America will soon sign strategic arms reduction treaty (START). This treaty would decrease the number of deployed warheads of both the countries from 2200 to 1500. Still both countries will maintain large stocks of short-range nuclear weapons. Both countries still need to negotiate to cut down the stock of 500 warheads each (Eland 2010). With these 500
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Would a World without Nuclear Weapons be more or less secure Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/history/1435220-would-a-world-without-nuclear-weapons-be-more-or
(Would a World Without Nuclear Weapons Be More or Less Secure Essay)
“Would a World Without Nuclear Weapons Be More or Less Secure Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/history/1435220-would-a-world-without-nuclear-weapons-be-more-or.
As seen from the study, the international community is constantly faced with extremely serious and complicated challenges concerning disarmament, including both conventional weapons and WMD. The real possibility for nuclear terrorism, as well as such conducted with biological or chemical substances, additionally complicates the situation.
As there has been increasing desire within the international community for nuclear disarmament, the argument has persisted whether the creation of such a weapon actually prevents conventional war. Paul, et al (2009) explains that most countries, including the UN Security Councils five permanent members have repeatedly committed themselves in law and word to the pursuit of nuclear disarmament in good faith in a bid to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether.
conventional battles. The importance of this debate in international relations is three-fold. First, nuclear weapons have devastating power and their use would preclude any theoretical or practical discussions of prospective diplomacy. Second, possession of nuclear weapons, in conjunction with other factors, makes various statements about the strategies of independent nations.
Rather, they are likely to change continuously in order to meet the requirements of the existing social and economic environment, which are volatile to external influences. This fact has been made clear in the case of security. The specific framework, which incorporates a wide range of social needs, has been differentiated under the influence of global political and economic pressures.
In Paul Wilkinson's article called Terrorism and the Rule of Law terrorism is defined like "the systematic use of murder, injury and destruction or threat of the same to create a climate of terror, to publicize a cause and to intimidate a wider target into conceding to the terrorists' aims" (12).
Today WMDs are nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons-frequently referred to collectively as NBC weapons."
Nuclear weapon is a device whose explosion causes massive release of energy by splitting the atoms of heavy elements ( fission) such as uranium or plutonium or fusion of lighter Hydrogen atoms.
The number of nations seeking nuclear weapons today suggests that a nuclear arsenal may be considered a strategic asset as discussed by Paulikas (2006).
However, for many analysts, the existence of such weapons also comes with a responsibility to not to use them to
However, the evidences, including Iran’s behaviour itself, point to the possibility that it is developing nuclear weapons, if it has not yet done so. The implications of this development are astounding for the Gulf region.
In this regard, rapid development in technology in weaponry as well as continuous changes in doctrine can be regarded as few of the key aspects leading to transform modern warfare into more destructive than ever. Undoubtedly, the significant emergence of war doctrines
38 Pages(9500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Would a World without Nuclear Weapons be more or less secure for FREE!