Paper Example on Nuclear Weapons Should be Eliminated

Introduction

For the longest time, a significant number of the world leaders have been spearheading the fight against nuclear weapons, and it has proved to be an almost impossible mission. However, it is worth noting that the number of atomic weapons has reduced from 70,000 to 16,000 since the year 1986 (Morales Pedraza 21). Surprisingly, the number does not assure the human survival and other forms of complex life especially with many countries threatening to detonate their nuclear bombs against their enemies. The disastrous use of atomic weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a clear indication that even the slightest nuclear war will lead to millions of deaths besides making a place inhabitable for a very long period (Morales Pedraza 26). In fact, countries dealing with nuclear weapons should realize their possession is like a kid playing with fire. The world's major powers can take pride in the way in which they can control the weapons, but the moment they penetrate into the military, world peace and human survival will be in jeopardy. The US, Soviet Union, and North Korea are the leading in the number of the nuclear weapons they possess. For example, the US has 7000 atomic weapons while the Soviet Union has almost 6,000 (Morales Pedraza 19). Other countries that have nuclear weapons include United Kingdom, France, Pakistan, China, and India.

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

Save 25%

At their inceptions, nuclear weapons were designed to serve a particular and strategic purpose. Consequently, they were not only made to counter the threats of other countries but also the mass destruction of entire cities. Nevertheless, there are now many small nuclear weapons that serve a tactical purpose. Atomic armaments differ in one way or another from each other. For example, they can be fusion or fission devices, and the manner in which they are used is that they can fired from a gun or dropped aerially from a plane or attached to a rocket. Nuclear weapons are known to waste a lot of habitable lands, destruction of property and brutal murder of millions of people, therefore, no country should consider using them during war. Furthermore, they cause some damage that cannot be reversed and the human suffering caused cannot be excusable.

Nuclear weapons cost a lot of money for majority of the world's economies yet they do not counter any of the present day, as well as, real threats from other countries. The money used to produce, maintain or destroy nuclear weapons can be channeled to other pressing needs such as poverty eradication and unemployment because the current state of the world today is different from the era of Cold War and World Wars I and II. The United States of America spends approximately $ 5.5 trillion on the nuclear weapons initiative with a taxation priority of 26% (Alvarez-Jimenez 11). On the other hand, the same government only allocates 3.3 % of its annual budget for other amenities such as education. Governments are struggling with guerrilla warfare, terrorism, and corruption which have proved to be more dangerous. Notably, guerilla warfare is a serious threat to political stability in Africa and Latin America since the armed civilians always attack the law enforcing agencies in the form of ambushes and raids which are withdrawn immediately making it a challenge for governments to deal with them (Alvarez-Jimenez 14). Terrorism is prevalent in the world today, and no country can deny being affected. It is worth mentioning that terror attacks are meant to fulfill religious, political and ideological goal by instilling fear and endangering the security of innocent civilians. Consequently, countries that have nuclear weapons should spend more time and money in dealing with such issues rather than atomic weapons.

In the short period of the nuclear age, humanity has experienced a lot of health issues due to the detonation of the atomic bombs. Notably, the damage caused by nuclear weapons is difficult to reverse and the majority of the animals, plants or humans that are affected end up dying or with terrible health conditions. For examples, the radiations from the remains take a very extended period to disappear, and therefore, multiple generations are affected by a single nuclear explosion. However, atomic blast exerts its effects on three levels, that is, heat wave, pressure wave, as well as, radiation. The heat waves are most likely to cause substantial fire outbreaks, besides the injuries caused by people getting hurt by flying fragments.

Humanity can be affected by nuclear weapons either directly or indirectly. In the direct one, people get affected by the first bombing attack whereby the majority of the populace lose their lives through the blasting effect or injuries from the heat. The next one affects survivors of the blast. A significant number of these individuals die due to the exposure to the radioactive waves after the attack or poison emanating from the radioactive materials (Doyle 17). Thermal and gamma burns have been found to be the most harmful ones, and they can cause death. Additionally, people go through very devastating symptoms that cause a lot of human suffering when exposed to the radiation than from the burns. For example, there is a significant number of lethal radiation syndromes which ranges from the prodromal symptoms, bone marrow destruction and incapacitation of the central nervous system (Holdstock). Millions of people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still struggling with deadliest conditions such as cancers, tumors, infertility, and complication while giving birth. Consequently, a good number of the people affected by the nuclear bombing have been reported to be infertile, having a damaged or overly sensitive skin apart from the transgenerational genetic damage. Exposure to nuclear radiation is a predisposing factor to the development of skin and thyroid cancer (Blandford and Ahn 191). The number of thyroid cancers increased by 200% in the years 1940 to 1950 after nuclear weapons were tested at the Marshall Islands (Alvarez-Jimenez 2). In Nevada nuclear weapons testing of the years 1950 to 1960, the radioactive material entered animal milk and negatively impacted on the health of people more specifically children who got exposed to milk. Notably, children of the people that were affected by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs are 80-fold more likely to develop complications and majority of them die before reaching the age of 10 years.

In as much as the nuclear weapons look like a monster to humanity, many countries have used them as deterrence or a discouraging mechanism to other nations from staging an attack on them. Despite the fact that weapons are created to ensure that a country can defend itself in the international scene the contrary is true. Nuclear weapons are known to be one of the reasons as to why countries do not want to fight each other but start peace-enhancing negotiations (Willett). The famous "Mutually Assured Destruction" trickles down from the fact that nations possess nuclear weapons. It is worth noting that countries such as China, North Korea, Pakistan and India are feared in the international circuit due to the pure awareness that they have nuclear weapons (Willett). Few countries would want to start a war with this countries for obvious reasons that there will be mass destruction. Some of the world skeptical population believe that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the end of the World War II (Mendelsohn 609). Despite the fact nobody can agree to such an assertion, statistics prove otherwise, in that if the war could have been allowed to go the number of death cases could have been more than 70,000 people who lost their lives as a result of the bombing (Willett).

Personal Opinion

I believe that there is no justification for the use something as cruel and vile as nuclear weapons. It is worth noting that most of the times atomic weapons end up in the hands of people that mean more harm than good to humanity. The end result is untold destruction of property and loss of lives. Although there are significant benefits of nuclear weapons such as serving as a tool for countries to carry out negotiations, there is an urgent need to recognize atomic weapons as a real meaning that the benefits can remain relevant on condition that the weapons do not land on the wrong hands. Few leaders are more likely to stand up against the use of nuclear weapons since the majority of them are not willing to give them up. However, their existence serves as a reminder for people to be aware of the existence of nuclear weapons, and probably it is the reason we have never seen another world war. The achievement of a nuclear-free world seems to be an uphill task currently, but world leaders can take it upon themselves to ensure a planet devoid of nuclear weapons. The most sensible leaders have come to terms that the most promising way to international security and cooperation is via controlling war in addition to the banning of the most destructive and dangerous elements. Notably, this alternative route calls for international treaties, patient diplomacy, the United Nations and disarmament measures. That is the safest way to deal with this threatening the well-being of people in the world today.

Nobody benefits from the destruction of property and loss of lives, and in fact, everybody that takes part in a way ends up becoming losers in one way or another. It is an undisputable fact that creation of warheads is a sign of a country's strength. Countries such as China and the US have it that nuclear warhead provides them with leverage due to the negative edge. North Korea has used nuclear weapons to threaten the western countries of their ability to destroy them. The questions that many people ask themselves is how a nation benefits from using their weapons against another country. Notably, the actual development of a country is built on having good relations with other countries which creates a favorable environment for carrying business with the states. Consequent, if country A attacks another country, they will not have good relations to build their economies on not mentioning the hate received from the rest of the world.

Work Cited

Morales Pedraza, Jorge. "Non-Proliferation and Disarmament of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons: New Tasks for the United Nations Specialised Agencies." Public Organization Review, vol. 14, no. 1, Mar. 2014, pp. 19-33. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11115-012-0203-x.

Doyle, Thomas. "A Moral Argument for the Mass Defection of Non-Nuclear-Weapon States from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Regime." Global Governance, vol. 23, no. 1, Jan-Mar2017, pp.15-26.

Alvarez-Jimenez, Alberto. "The Icj 'S Marshall Islands (Mis) Judgments on Nuclear Disarmament." Syracuse Journal of International Law & Commerce, vol. 45, no. 1, Fall2017, pp.1-33.

Mendelsohn[b], Professor Jack. "History and Evaluation of the Role of Nuclear Weapons in the Cold War [*]." Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 31, no. 3, Spring/Summer99Supplement, p.609.

Willett, Susan and Research United Nations Institute for Disarmament. Costs of Disarmament--Disarming the Costs: Nuclear Arms Control and Nuclear Rearmament. United Nations Publications, 2003.

Holdstock, Douglas. "Nuclear Weapons, a Continuing Threat to Health." Lancet, vol. 355, no. 9214, 29 Apr. 2000, p. 1544.

Blandford, E. D., and J. Ahn. "Examining The Nuclear Accident At Fukushima Daiichi".Elements 8.3 (2012): 189-194. Web.