If I hadn’t personally experienced how weapons, if fallen in the wrong hands, Hitler/ Bugabi /Bashar Al Assad/ ….. , can eradicate entire generations and civilizations I would not be so against it but an unforgettable image of demolition, annihilation and extermination is planted in my head.
What drives me mad is why leaders can’t just bother with their own country and their own business? Why are all the leaders in the world so greedy to a point where it is just disgusting? Why can’t George Bush just stay in America? Did he really have to “help” Iraq? Why can’t Israel stay out of Palestine? Is it because it is a strong country and has nukes? If we were not living in a hideous, horrendous, horrifying world we would not have needed weapons. Yet if you we live in a bad world we try and make it better not worst with using or even inventing weapons
Did it occur to you once why do weapons even exist? Have you ever asked yourself what mass destruction weapons are used for? Or what good are they doing for humanity? Weapons of mass destruction are as useless as a roasted pork in Mecca completely and utterly useless, in fact, as it is obvious in the word “mass destruction”, it is only used to kills hundreds of thousands of people and do damage worth millions and millions of pounds.
I have read on the internet an article that included the following statement “every dollar spent on weapons is a dollar less spent on education, development, and social welfare”. Which links to my next point; The US has spent more than 5.5 trillion $ in developing their nuclear arsenal and France has spent about 1.5 trillion $. These numbers do not include the costs of testing, fissile material production, storage and disposal. The costs for other nuclear weapon states are probably similar. To put this into perspective the price of global elimination of starvation, provision of health care, provision of shelter and clean water, elimination of illiteracy, provision of sustainable energy, debt relief for developing countries, clearance of landmines and more has been estimated to be about 260 billion $ annually for 10 years. I think the difference is quite obvious.
I can best explain this if I took a minute to talk about The Chernobyl disaster. The Chernobyl disaster was a catastrophic nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. Now this was only an accident and it cost 18 billion dollars. Imagine this was a deliberate attack; it would have killed hundreds of thousands. Now why would we not get rid of WMDs and all other kinds of weapons and eliminate the chance of “accidents” happening again. Let us think back to world war two (where no WMDs were used) and the reason it all started. It was all because of a selfish maniac who wanted to rule the whole world. And he saw that going into war with France, England, Poland, Russia and plenty more would achieve that for him. Boy was he wrong. Not only Hitler caused Germany a demeaning defeat but also he was the reason behind the bloodshed of more than 2.5% of the world population. That is sixty million people who had nothing to do with the war DEAD.
It is true that it somehow protects the people and the government against an attack but if all the weapons in the world were destroyed, which unfortunately is far from happening, there would be no more attacks. In a matter of fact there would be no more wars, no more conquers, and no more conflict between countries. I made my points; I have stated facts, opinions, life experience and evidences on the uselessness of weapons. I don’t think any of us would want to live in a havoc world.
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
In addition to the reduction in weapons, the number of countries which were developing, had developed or were seriously discussing nuclear programs has dropped since the 1980’s. This was due to a combination of factors that still determine such decisions today, including security, expense, need for status or prestige, internal politics and other factors.…
- 866 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
I agree with the nuclear optimists that nuclear proliferation will make international politics more stable and less war prone. Since nuclear weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), more specifically as true WMD (Baylis pg 386), I believe states that possess nuclear weapons will be reluctant to use them against states who also possess nuclear weapons, out of the fear those state will retaliate with their own nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons poses risk to a state that chooses to use a nuclear weapon against another nuclear proliferated state. Therefore, by this logic it benefits to a state to be nuclear proliferated as a defensive precaution or a deterrence mechanism.…
- 581 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
In today's world, there are many things that we are not happy. The whole time we complain about something, what worries us. However, when a good think about it, we see that we spoil ourselves this world. Often, the inventions and strenuous effort take control of everything around you. The question is: what would I get rid of to improve life in the 21st century?…
- 924 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The United States should not continue to develop and test weapons of mass destruction because it can kill millions,It's expensive and has lack of morals. On August 6, 1945 Harry S. Truman, had to make a world changing and tough decision. The United States dropped the world’s first deployed atomic bomb all over Japan,Hiroshima.The explosion destroyed 90% of the city and very quickly killed about 80,000 people and later on because of radiation exposure , 10,000 people died. The United States shouldn’t make and test weapons of mass destruction because it’s harmful, costs a lot, and has flaws.…
- 608 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
“Everyone in the world is threatened by the existence of nuclear weapons. Has anyone the right to wield such destructive power?” (Morality of Nuclear Deterrent) Many people in the United States disagree on whether the United States should keep nuclear weapons. Mainly because of the moral factor. Yes, it is dangerous for countries to own such a powerful figure that threatens millions of people around the world, but the world is trapped by this idea of possible idea of nuclear war that just about every country has on these weapons of mass destruction and will continue to make more to show dominance over the other countries who don’t have as much. The moral factor that is sure to be constantly brought up by many people about keeping our nuclear weapons will always be discussed since the greater damage these weapons cause. For example, when the United Stated bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes it was tactically right decision and prevented imperialism from expanding, and preventing the cause of japan gaining complete dominance over the world had to be overlooked when coming into the moral play off of the all the people who were affected by this disaster to their country. These cities where quite larger, but not to big so there…
- 1607 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Every time I hear a word "War" as a child, I still have to hear a word "Nuclear Weapons". From that time, I didn't know what they are. But when I grow up, I learned that Nuclear Weapons are the device that can destroy many people or one small country. So I believe that They are the killing device. From these reasons…
- 276 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
It is urgent that action is taken against Governments holding and creating these weapons. As citizens of the world. Our lives are at risk when these devices are apart of our reality. In the article “Ban Nuclear Weapons; Saving Money and Saving the World” by Alan Robock he states that if 2 counties were to have a nuclear war, “it would only take about 50 Hiroshima sized atomic bombs” to create climate change never before seen in recorded human history. There are some 2,000 nuclear warheads on high alert, ready to be launched anywhere in the world within 4-8 minutes. There is a phenomenon known as "Nuclear Winter" which is of real concern. Experts say the smoke from the detonations would block the sunlight from reaching the earth's surface for years. Eventually many most places, if not all, would become uninhabitable. These weapons…
- 556 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Nuclear weapons are one of the many common fears of the modern world. Because at any minute, the world could suffer a nuclear filled catastrophe, killing millions. Not only are they potentially life threatening, the biggest nations in the world have stockpiles of these weapons of mass destruction. That is not the scariest part however. The effects of nuclear warfare are just as deadly, if not, worse. Nevertheless, the rapid extermination of the radioactive explosives ought to occur globally because not only is the explosion from one highly destructive to humans, animals, and the environment, it also brings deadly long-term side effects to the table by polluting the environment nearly hundreds of miles away from where the explosion occurs, making…
- 671 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
Gusterson, H. (1999) Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination. American Anthropology Association.…
- 3341 Words
- 14 Pages
Powerful Essays -
-nuclear Weapons are intolerable. Nuclear weapons can wipe out most if not all of the lives on Earth.…
- 1369 Words
- 6 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Contrary to nuclear Proliferation State like South Africa destroyed its nuclear weapons in 1991 due to reduction in its security threats. This shows that states may give up their nuclear weapons if their security threats are eliminated.…
- 673 Words
- 3 Pages
Good Essays -
The term Weapons of Mass Destruction has two indications. In its broader, literal sense, it is used to refer to weapons whose destructive power far surpasses that of guns or conventional explosives. However, the term is more often used in a narrower sense, to refer specifically to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which raised awareness of America’s vulnerability, the United States has greatly intensified its efforts to stop the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. When the president and other officials refer to “weapons of mass destruction,” they usually mean NBC weaponry. An organism or toxin found in nature is used in them that is meant to kill or incapacitate an enemy. Though there are different types and they are made up of different ingredients, they are all meant to kill and do significant destruction. The United States Military refers to them as "weapons that are capable of high order destruction and being used to destroy large numbers of people." Many countries posses weapons of mass destruction for one main cause. Because they "generate a culture of fear", they are held in reserve by countries as a scare tactic. They are set aside to be used as a threat, if another country were to use them, they would in turn be bombed with weapons of mass destruction. During the Cold War, the term "weapons of mass destruction" was primarily a reference to nuclear weapons. At the time, in the West the euphemism "strategic weapons" was used to refer to the American nuclear arsenal, which was presented as a necessary deterrent against nuclear or conventional attack from the Soviet Union.The term "weapons of mass destruction" continued to see periodic use throughout this time, usually in the context of nuclear arms control; Ronald Reagan used it during the 1986 Reykjavík Summit, when referring to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Reagan's successor, George H.W. Bush, used the term in an 1989 speech to the…
- 1179 Words
- 5 Pages
Good Essays -
This toxicity of nuclear weapons not only causes cancer, but a lot more health problems. The short term effects from radiation is nausea, vomiting, malnutrition, and fatal dehydration. The long term effects include thyroid cancer, lymphoma, and malformations of children. These effects can be deadly, further proving that nuclear weapons are a harm to the environment. Although nuclear weapons can affect the environment very negatively, it isn’t just the nuclear weapons that affect the environment. If there is a nuclear explosion, the capacity of the healthcare system which responds to this emergency is very important as well. As well as the healthcare system, a country or city must have enough money to help and lead them out of the aftermath of nuclear war. In the United States, “clean up” of this aftermath is projected to cost more than 300 billion through the year of 2070, making nuclear war a very costly activity. Not only are nuclear weapons costly money wise, they are costly…
- 1514 Words
- 7 Pages
Powerful Essays -
In these modern times, are nuclear power plants feasible to every nation around the world? How about in a nation experiencing the toll of depletion of resources, destruction of nature and poverty at the same time; is it still an answer for economic growth? Is the construction of nuclear power plants an aid for the spur of development of a country or a growing threat to the environment? Do nuclear power plants serve the people best or destroy the nature best?…
- 3466 Words
- 14 Pages
Best Essays -
Weapons and tactics have undergone total transformation in the last millennium but no deterrent has managed to quell human conflict. It may look totally different has managed to quell human conflict. It may look totally different for the war-mongers but no the common man it gives the same results – death and destruction. The totally of wars since 1945 right from Nagasaki and Hiroshima to iraq and Afganistan continue to grow without respite. The irony of the new millennium is that improvement in technology and scientific advancement have given us more options, leaving us with our major drawback, our primitive human failing – the fear of the other.…
- 997 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays