Black poisonous rain. Cancer from radiation exposure. Deformities. Flattened cities. Charred bodies scattered everywhere. This is not a scene from another post-apocalyptic movie. This is the aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in 1945. After such destruction, the use of these powerful nuclear weapons went under debate. Sixty-five years later, many countries are hoarding nukes but none have been used and the issue of nuclear weapons is still a topic under debate. Whether you’re a right-winger, left-winger, or any other winger, chances are you have some sort of opinion on who, if anyone, should have these nuclear bombs. In “Nuclear Ambition,” an article from Nature magazine, the author argues, “the US weapons labs need to develop a twenty-first-century vision of deterrence — one that does not include making new bombs” while the article “Want Peace? Give a Nuke the Noble” from TIME magazine claims that “nukes” aren’t only a necessity, but that they will also prevent future global wars. Both articles provide contrasting and strong outlooks with the Nature article, which leans towards a more liberal perspective, pitting itself against the TIME article, which leans towards a more conservative perspective.
Earlier this year, President Obama of the United States and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new arms treaty that promises to reduce nuclear weapons. Since the United States and Russia hold over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, this treaty was defiantly a momentous step towards nuclear deterrence. According to the author of “Nuclear Ambition,” there is still much work to be done, especially if we want to reach Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons.
Although the treaty was a good start to a decrease in nuclear arms, it did not quite cover everything (just like every other treaty made since the dawn of time). This treaty was not able to restrain “cold-war” thinking from our very own US nuclear weapons labs (“Nuclear Ambition”). In other words, scientists can still create new nukes due to those oh so wonderful loopholes despite the fact that there is no evidence that current weapons could not be kept up for years. In order to prevent this, the author claims that Obama must make some changes such as passing an executive order that would place nuclear scientists under observation. Hopefully, this would lead to a shrinking nuclear amount.
In contrast, the author of “Want Peace? Give a Nuke the Noble” claims that a world without atomic weapons is not only impossible, but also a terrible idea. For example, if one were to look back in history, one would see that in the 31 years leading up to the first atomic bomb, 1914-1945, there were two world wars with millions of casualties. Since the creation of the nuke, there have been no global wars and the world is in a (mostly) peaceful time. This is because powerful nations are too scared to do anything for fear of nuclear war. An example of this can be summed up in two words… Cold War! Also, the author claims that it’s TOO LATE to have a world without nuclear weapons. Now that so many nations possess such destructive power it would be nearly impossible to give them up. Even if the world were to outlaw these weapons, nations and other organizations would still have a few nukes secretly for fear of other nations and organizations that just might possess secret nukes. So pretty much, now that we have them there is no getting rid of them.
Originally, I was all for destroying every single nuclear weapon and I definitely sided with the Nature article, “Nuclear Ambition”. However, after hearing both sides I started to lean towards the TIME article, “Want Peace? Give a Nuke the Noble”, because there is no way that the world could make sure that every single country and organization (out of the hundreds that exists) is without nukes and isn’t creating them secretly for their own protection. Nuclear bombs are the most dangerous and destructive weapons on this earth and have the ability to incinerate people and flatten cities, as seen from the aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in 1945. In the wrong hands, these weapons could destroy countless countries or even destroy the world as we know it. In my opinion, a world without nuclear weapons is something to dream about but overall is impossible. Instead of working towards a world with no nuclear weapons, we should be working towards a world where nukes are rare and laws on them are strict.
“Nuclear Ambition.” Nature. 21 April 2010. <
“Obama, Medvedev sign treaty to reduce nuclear weapons.” The Washington Post. 8 April 2010. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040801677.html>
Von Drehle, David. “Want Peace? Give a Nuke the Noble.” Time. 11 October 2009. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html>
No comments:
Post a Comment