Jan 25, 2016 - Communication    3 Comments

Abolishment of nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons. The ultimate maker of peace, and stopper of wars. Who would have known that a weapon of mass destruction was not only capable of wiping out nations from the face of the world, but also the key to stopping any wars from happening in the first place. The name weapons of mass destruction in itself reassures me. Many have tried and failed in attempting to restore order in the world; some have made alliances with countries and others have tried to unite the world with peace talks. The world was in a state of chaos but with the modern introduction of nuclear weapons all seems to be well, it only took several billions of dollars. Interestingly, the current death rate in the U.S caused by violence is 36 murders a day. Not to mention they introduced the policy of guns as self protection in the first place and refute any idea that they could in return be harmful in the society. This is the same country with the highest count of nuclear weapons… Can we blame them? Surely if you could “tax” the people and had the ability to invest in a nuclear programme you would do the same thing. For the sake of peace.

On serious terms, have the number of wars stopped since the introduction of nuclear weapons? The world has witnessed the destruction of these weapons in Japan, but still we give a blind eye to the governments who invest in these programs. The same people who tell us that nuclear weapons are “agents of peace”. Guns in the U.S follows the same concept of using weapons as a form of protection and avoiding violence; in fact more people have died in the US from gun violence than from actual wars themselves. But the abuse of these policies are known to everyone. Handguns are promoted to Americans for their personal safety which is significantly attempting to reduce the current high crime rates. With this ideology it would be rational to think that the introduction of nuclear weapons is the solution to World peace; if it works in America it sure will work globally. Nuclear weapons are a form of “protection”, but having a country armed with them puts that country in risk of being caught up in nuclear war. Is it possible to put the future of the planet into the hands of the people that think their gun laws do not correspond with the rate of crime and deaths?

A majority of the world is in a state of democracy, this is great as it shows progress towards peace. Democracy has developed so much that government leaders can wipe out entire nations with the push of a single button, certainly at the request of the people. Are you sure you would want to give this power to those who use nuclear weapons as chess pieces for their own gain? The governments are not the only ones abusing this power, but the high chances of terrorists acquiring such weapons that cost multi millions to create would be fatal of course. They on the other hand would not hesitate to use them. Even when terrorists do not have explosives, there is a high risk of danger. Saddam Hussein was accused of being in possession of nuclear weapons, but allied forces invaded killing many civilians, only to find there are no weapons of mass destruction. The peace keepers sure did their jobs.

The immoral policy of nuclear deterrent is relied upon by all states with nuclear weapons. It may be able to prevent wars from occurring as there is the risk of mutually assured destruction and nobody will resort to nuclear war. The fact is countries are still having a race amongst each other to see who has the largest arsenal of nukes, it is similar to the competition children have with toys. Just holding nukes will cause a country to be in danger of attack. More nukes means less chance of using them, although this may sound like a positive factor, there is the case of miscommunication or misunderstanding. As ridiculous as it sounds, errors can be made with transmissions, even when dealing with sensitive information such as nuclear weapons. There has been a case when World War 3 was close to eruption due to lack of miscommunication. During the cold war a Russian general received the go to launch all sub missiles on targeted states because of a computer error. Luckily, he refused to input his launch codes, if that had not happened you would not be reading this article at this very moment.

The more dangerous issue is that people are led into believing that because no nuclear attacks have occurred since the disaster in Japan 1945, it wont happen at all. It is a dangerous mindset to have as there are many points to why nuclear weapons are great solutions to peace and that it is simply impossible for something to go wrong. They work – then one day they wont. It would be best for humanity and all life on earth to not discover when or if that day comes. So in the end a world without nuclear weapons is a better world, or it could possibly be the end.

3 Comments

  • Have a look at the speech that is embedded in this blog post: http://publicaddress.net/great-new-zealand-argument/nuclear-weapons-are-morally-indefensible/

  • This piece shows a clear line of reasoning in relation to a complex idea. The satirical component in the first paragraph was a good choice, and could be underlined through the use of slightly greater exaggeration. This will aid the development of an ironic tone, which re-surfaces throughout the piece.

    When drawing the relationship between gun violence and nuclear armament i feel you lost some opportunities to draw ironic comparison:

    – Aren’t hand guns promoted to Americans for their personal safety?
    – Would you put the future of the planet in the hands of a country that thinks their liberal gun laws bear no relationship to the rate of death by shooting?

    Current grade: 34/40 B1 – this could absolutely be an A* piece, with the development of the ironic/satirical component.

  • The improvements did the trick nicely. Well done, Leon.

    38/40 [A*]

Got anything to say? Go ahead and leave a comment!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers: