Banning Nuclear Weapons Testing
Do you know how much money our nation spends on weapons? We have more than enough and aren’t allowed to use one in war without the complications of Nuclear Winter. Our country should reduce the amount of funding on nuclear weapons. However, in the one situation where we may need to incinerate a chemical war zone, a nuclear weapon is necessary.
Nuclear weapons testing should be done on a much smaller scale on the back side of the moon. Radioactive waste and radiation have been major problems on Earth since nuclear science was founded. Currently in Japan such things are a scare because of the floods causing leak problems in the power plants. Portions of Japan had malignant genetic mutations said to be the causes of the largest explosions during WWII. Russia had similar problems in the event of the Chernobyl disaster.
I think that there is less to gain and more to worry about from nuclear tests. I also think that that any nations defense should if absolutely necessary use a larger number of small weapons that aren’t radioactive or biochemical hazardous because of accuracy. If a nation has nuclear power it also has the technology to make weapons. If nuclear weapons in other countries are problems, United Nations should shut down the nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is sort of out dated and can be replaced from modern technology. The amount of money spent on radioactive waste handling could instead go towards alternative sources of energy. Chemical warfare is the worst conditions that any creature could live through. Nuclear weapons can produce the heat required to destroy any biological outbreak. World leaders all seem to agree with this. In 2006 they were constantly at a stand off of who needs to disarm themselves first. They should just keep their weapons incase of severe civilian riots or portions of military disobedience. I don’t believe that they can get a refund on something like that. Based on Richard Meserve, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) featured in the Weapons of Mass Destruction book: “There are approximately 150,000 licensees for radioactive materials in the U.S. and 2 million devices containing radioactive material in the U.S. today. From these an average of approximately 375 sources or devices of all kinds are reported lost or stolen each year in the U.S., that is, roughly one per day. That chilling statistic illustrates why, in a run of events worthy of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, the United States finds itself at greater risk of an attack by nuclear-based weaponry today than at the height of the Cold War. ” (Greenhaven Press) In the book Weapons of Mass Destruction by Greenhaven, there is a quote from George W. Bush that says: “Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)-nuclear, biological, and chemical-in the possession of hostile states and terrorists represent one of the greatest security challenges facing the United States.” ( Greenhaven Press)
According to the Weapons of Mass Destruction book:
“Most experts believe that the likelihood of a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is low-at least, lower than the likelihood of a conventional attack. Nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons are simply harder to build and use than conventional arms and explosives.” ( Greenhaven Press)
In the Weapons of Mass Destruction book, a task force on homeland security sponsored by Harvard University says: “ The consequences of a successful (WMD) attack would be severe…Relatively small amounts of some chemical and biological agents can create mass casualties, potentially causing large numbers of fatalities and an overwhelming number of injuries. The consequences of a WMD incident could also include economic damage, environmental contamination, international repercussions, increased internal police powers, and deleterious psychological effects on...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document