Essay Sample on Reasons Against the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Introduction

Maintenance of law and order is the vital role of the international community. Even though using weapons of mass destruction might look to be against the moral law, the international law of maintaining order requires nations to adopt the possible ways of keeping his citizens away from the destruction that an enemy might launch to the country. The use of most of the strategies that nations used to control people seem to be going against the humanitarian law and international law of maintaining order and human coexistence (Cohen n.p.). The importance of mass destruction like the atomic bomb might cost a nation its economic base, the military, and might lead to damage that might be first from generation to generation like the one that happened in Nagasaki during the second world war.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Since the nation that is coerced might also think of focusing on a given weapon of mass destruction, there is no need to consider using atomic bomb on this matter since the bone might result in extensive effects that might even be felt by the military force that is to set fire against the enemy (Cohen n.p.). The use of weapons of mass destruction during World War II against Japan in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. There was mass destruction which affected a large population, and the effects are still experienced today.

Nuclear technology implementation seems to be so horrific with the fact that when used the technology affects the progressive generations that are proving that it is against the international law and humanitarian aspect of enhancing human associations (Cohen n.p.). The unwilling enemies might also make the fighting soldiers to be involved in the mass destruction that is supposed to be launched by the use of an atomic bomb or any other weapon of mass destruction.

Since humane fate prevents the use of weapons of mass destruction, the moral question lies between the fact that once a technological advancement is realized, then it ought to be implemented to realize its hidden benefits and to correct its cons concerning human behaviour and interact with the social systems (Cohen n.p.). However, the effect of nuclear reactors seems to be overwhelmingly high and irreversible from the fact that Japan is still suffering from the impact of the nuclear reactors that were launched by the US. It is unethical to launch a missile by using weapons of mass destruction on this case since it will also incur a challenge to the military force that is supposed to launch their weapon against the enemy. For instance, the use of the atomic bomb in Japan during World War II portrayed to be in the wrong position since the weapon destroyed a very large area which was not expected and in that perspective, the soldiers who were in the line of duty were also involved in the effect of the bomb. Hence, it was proving that it is not a viable solution of preventing the death of its soldiers.

Since the time the time the US used a weapon of mass destruction (Nuclear reactors) against Japan, there has been various discussions concerning the moral news of the weapons of mass destruction as a foreign policy wearing the fact that weapons of mass destruction tend to cause long-term biological Deformation to the human race (Simon and Bouville 409).

The atomic bomb detonation on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was found to affect a large coverage of the town killing roughly 180,000 people within six days before Japan surrendered to the united states (Archive n. p.). Even the united states restored law and order that it required by ending world war ii, the effect of the bomb is still experienced in Japan that's portraying that the use of the whip on is not recommended for humans as it causes generational problem concerning biological deformation. The definition of cropping the first against the fan is still a subject of discussion concerning the efficacy and ethical consideration with the effect that the bomb cost to the Japan nation. In that perspective, it is clear that it is not a viable solution to use weapons of mass destruction as a way of controlling elements which might be a threat to our national security.

According to staff (1997), the use of atomic weapons portrays a high level of animosity against human existence. The article also outlines the effect of rape and the psychological challenges that the invasion of Shanghai cost its citizens (Alperovitz n. p.). On the contrary opinion, Smithsonian law of life that he who controls the present controls the past and offers a better solution to the future. In that perspective, it is somehow important for a nation to enhance security by doing all things possible to prevent mass destruction on the citizen (Cohen n.p.). With that perspective, it is clear that both the use of weapons of mass destruction and avoiding to use the weapons both result in a challenge to the unarmed citizens (Radio Counterspin n. p.). However, their moral concern related to the longtime effects of the atomic bomb that was dropped in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, there is need to avoid the use of the weapons it might also affect the soldiers on the ground.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons has been found to be a threat to human survival that many countries seemed to be denying the fact that they were an ardent supporter of the creation of nuclear weapons (Bentley 95). Nations need to align with the international peace treaty and humanitarian law which it seeks to promote human coexistence concerning a better living that is free from crime and biosecurity issues.

Conclusion

Nuclear weapons supposed to be categorized as weapons of mass destruction. "Most leaders consider weapons of mass destruction to be substituted for the strategic arsenal" that is proving that the weapons should be there for the nation's but should not be whatsoever used against our nation's allies. It has been found out chemical composition and the destructive ability that nuclear weapons have made many nations to be willing to give them away that is proving that they are not viable in the implementation process for being used as a foreign policy.

Works Cited

Alperovitz, Gar. "BEYOND THE SMITHSONIAN FLAP: HISTORIANS' NEW CONSENSUS". Democracy Dies In The Darkness, 1994, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1994/10/16/beyond-the-smithsonian-flap-historians-new-consensus/75689ba6-e078-4cba-a9ea-7a70fd1d8a74/?utm_term=.6cb4d36d9cba. Accessed 10 Dec 2018.

Archive, Shin's et al. "Understanding The Decision To Drop The Bomb On Hiroshima And Nagasaki". Krwizard.Blogspot.Com, 2018, http://krwizard.blogspot.com/2014/12/understanding-decision-to-drop-bomb-on.html. Accessed 10 Dec 2018.

Cohen, Richard. "Truman Was Right To Use The Bomb On Japan". The Washington Post, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-apologies-necessary/2015/08/17/a0899906-450a-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html?utm_term=.4dac8937c75f. Accessed 10 Dec 2018.

Powers, Thomas. "Was It Right?". The Atlantic, 1995, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1995/07/was-it-right/376364/. Accessed 10 Dec 2018.

Radio, Counterspin et al. "Media To Smithsonian: History Is Bunk". FAIR, 2018, https://fair.org/extra/media-to-smithsonian/. Accessed 10 Dec 2018.